David Cameron tells the Church of England to be more ‘gay friendly’

She refers to his ‘astonishing attack on the Church of England over its attitudes to homosexuality’.

Curious, that.

One wonders why Mr Cameron has not seen fit to criticise the Roman Catholic Church, which is rather more robust on the issue.

Or his local mosque, which he might find even more robust.

That aside, Mr Cameron is of the opinion that ‘if our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality’.

Cranmer begs to differ: if ‘our Lord Jesus’ were around today, there is nothing at all to suggest that he would be remotely interested in talking about ‘equality’ or ‘rights’ at all.

He would be preaching the gospel, in season and out, and calling on people to repent of their sin and prepare for the coming of the Kingdom.

Mr Cameron says: “I don't want to get into a huge row with the Archbishop here, but the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through. Sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom-line, full essential.”

To be frank, Cranmer is rather irritated by this, not least because Mr Cameron appears to be completely ignorant (as Mrs Gledhill points out) of the ‘endless debates, committees, reports, schisms and not-quite-schisms that have played out in the Anglican Communion over the last decade and more on this issue’.

His Grace would like respectfully to point out to Mr Cameron that the Church of England began the process to which he refers while he was still a whining schoolboy, with his satchel and shining morning face, creeping like snail unwillingly past Bekynton to Lower Chapel.

And now, in the tenor of Tony Blair lecturing the Pope on this very matter, David Cameron is suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury should ‘modernise’ the Church of England.

Good grief.

The Church of England has been adapting, compromising and perpetually 'modernising' along via media after via media since 1534. The genius of Anglicanism is that it seeks to reconcile opposed systems, rejecting them as exclusive systems, but showing that the principle for which each stands has its place within the total orbit of Christian truth.

Mrs Gledhill continues:

‘On civil partnerships, Cameron said it was “worth looking” at changing civil partnerships to marriage but at the moment he favoured staying where we are.

‘He said gay people should be able to adopt. He confessed he had argued about it with him but believed he could convince even the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Scotland (he didn't say which RC AB in Scotland...) that “there are occasions when gay adoption is a perfectly sensible and straightforward thing.” He said he believed that children do best when there are two parents to help bring them up and that “the ideal adoption is finding a mum and dad, but there will be occasions when gay couples make very good adoptive parents. So I support gay adoption.”

‘Cameron was then asked: “Do you think that the right of gay children to have a safe education trumps the right of faith schools to teach that homosexuality is a sin?”

‘He answered: “Basically yes – that's the short answer to that, without getting into a long religious exegesis. I mean, I think, yes. I think...(long pause)... I don't want to get into an enormous row with the Archbishop here. But I think the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through – sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom line full essential.’

But, Mr Cameron, the Church of England is not a political party that may be recreated in the image of man.

It is no-one’s private fiefdom (though it may once have been).

Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor, and Jesus Christ is the Head.

It is acutely concerned with all that Mr Cameron talks of: the persecution abroad of homosexuals; the adoption of children by suitable parents irrespective of sexuality; the provision of services for the poor and marginalised; the expression of compassion to the alienated, outcast, oppressed and persecuted, irrespective of their gender, skin colour, sexuality or religion. The doors of the Church of England are open to everyone in the land. For centuries before the Conservative Party even existed, it has possessed the capacity for the via media which was never in its essence compromise or an intellectual expedient but a quality of thinking, an approach in which elements usually regarded as mutually exclusive were seen to be in fact complementary. These things were held in 'living tension', not in order to walk the tightrope of compromise, but because they were seen to be mutually illuminating and to fertilise each other.

This is the ‘living tension’ which was first advocated by Hooker (of whom Mr Cameron has probably never heard), who was opposed to absolutism in both church and state and an exponent of conciliar thought. This ensures that the laity, clergy and bishops all participate in guarding against autocracy in a system of checks and balances that in many ways apes the parliamentary process. If authority is dispersed, spiritual tyranny is prevented. The similarities between the synodical and parliamentary procedures are unsurprising when both expressions of representative government have a common root in mediaeval political thought.

Yet Mr Cameron appears to be intent on pursuing the Harman agenda and forging an absolutism. The Archbishop of York has said of Labour:

“Our current Government is in danger of sacrificing Liberty in favour of an abused form of equality – not a meaningful equality that enables the excluded to be brought into society, but rather an equality based on diktat and bureaucracy, which overreaches into the realm of personal conscience.”

While the observations may be wholly valid and politically astute, they only add to the perception that the Church of England seeks to exclude or is out of sympathy with some distinct groups of people for whom it should have a pastoral concern. This would be less of a problem if the Church’s Supreme Governor were not also the Head of State, for by virtue of being so, she is obliged to exercise her public ‘outward government’ in a manner which accords with the private welfare of her subjects – of whatever creed, ethnicity, sexuality or political philosophy. The royal supremacy in regard to the Church is in its essence the right of supervision over the administration of the Church, vested in the Crown as the champion of the Church, in order that the ‘religious welfare’ of its subjects may be provided for.

While politicians may argue over the manner of this ‘religious welfare’ in a context of ‘equality’ and ‘rights’, by focusing on such issues they alienate and distance the Church from political engagement.

Since Mr Cameron is likely to be Prime Minister when the Pope visits in September, Cranmer will be listening keenly to see if he lectures His Holiness and insists that his church must also ‘do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through. Sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom-line, full essential’.

Or would that run the risk of accusations of being ‘anti-Catholic’?

Yet if ‘full equality’ is ‘the bottom line’, if it is ‘full essential’, we are in for a far more interesting religio-political time under the next Conservative government than Cranmer could ever have dreamed.

70 Comments:

Your Grace, this is hubris on a grand scale. Cameron has no right to lecture the ABC in this fashion and it is not for Cameron to force sexually active Gay Vicars onto the Church (I'm with Paul Leviticus on that- not sure which denomination I would go to though).

I am now more than ever undecided about whether to pledge myself to the current conservative party and its causes.

They are as remote to me as the socialists (that is if I knew what their policies actually were as they either keep changing them or have not told the british public).

I really hope that this is not a sign that Cameron is going to continue with the socialist project. I could barely forgive his stance on Europe- giving England to the EU on a dinner plate! But his conversion to the equality agenda reinforces my deeply held thought that this man is a career politician, with no conviction and will be more runious that the socialists.

Sometimes I have this discussion with my staff- would it not be better for the socialists to win, so that the country really sees disaster and with Cameron out of the way we return to a 'real' conservative party, based around

the Church of England,patrotism and support of our beloved Monarchyproperty rightslaw and orderlow taxationgetting the nanny state off people's backsencouraging enterprise and getting people off benefits to workwhilst also looking after the weak and defenceless?

So you think that if one proclaims a belief in the supernatural, it immediately grants you the right to be a biggoted tosspot and disrespect those who do not fit into your bigoted mould?

Do you actually expect modern society to believe the crap that homosexuals will burn in hell, because an illiterate and equally bigoted tosspot in the bronze age didn't approve of men and women who were born to be homosexuals?Bullcrap. You'll all end up as worm food after death. Just like the rest of us. You're kidding yourselves if you think you will live forever, on bended knee, worshipping King Bigot.

What a waste of life; defending bigotry and superstition. Grow up and show respect for your fellow citizens - gay or otherwise.

Your Grace, welcome news from David Cameron. But perhaps his intervention will backfire against those of us who are honest God fearing folk who happen to be gay and want to reform the Church from within.

If the CoE is the Conservative Party at prayer, it appears that Cameron wants to transform it into the modern progressive Conservatives! Perhaps he genuinely does believe the CoE should tow the party line in the run-up to the election.

Methinks that with his talk of bottom-line equality, DC is addressing the gay community out of his cute little electioneering a**e!

Your Grace, now we shall have to prepare for the onslaught of the gay lobby on this blog. But we shall prevail as we did in our fight against the atheists. We shall win our fight against bealzubub.....

I also see that the red tory, lavendon is still on this blog- depart! YES YOU ! Begone!

David Cameron tells the Church of England to be more ‘gay friendly’ ............The Church is supposed to be salt and light to the world which has lost its way and is so blinded to sin that it can no longer see.Without Jesus Christ this world and its inhabitants are lost.The Church must preach the Gospel without reservation , however unpopular. ............

"You are the salt of the earth.(Christians, the Church) But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. (Matthew 5:13)

It is no surprise to me that Cameron has attacked the Church of England over its attitude towards gays,he believes it is his right to influence church doctrine as other politicians have done and no doubt he expects church leaders to bend to his will to aid his election campaign.

And who can blame him.The church and the state have been bedfellows for a long time,activily seeking each others support in all manner of adventures and plots...you your grace daily here ,blend your faith with Cameron`s Conservatives.

Personaly I believe the church should concern itself with preparing souls for death and not meddling in political intrigues.

It behooves us to remain neutral to worldly affairs, including its politics, and to stick to God's Kingdom as the government we give our allegiance to.

What did you think of the politically intriguing defeat of Harman's equality bill by the Lords Spiritual?

If the Church did not fuse itself so tightly to political shennanigan`s in the first place and and focused its energies on its flock as Jesus and his diciple`s taught,politican`s would have no leverage on the Church.

I believe The Lords Spiritual should be in church preaching to their flock ,not in parliament intriguing.

God's kingdom government will destroy all man-made governments completely, whatever flavor they come in, whether socialistic, monarchistic, democratic, or indeed any other form.

I believe there are three strands which have been intertwined in the current debate about the Equality Bill which need to be separated.Cameron's interference in the internal affairs of the C of E make the need to clarify the principles concerned even more pressing. Firstly:EQUALITY. The law, now rejected, but which DC wishes to revive in some form if he comes to power, will not make one person more "equal" than any other - whether homosexual or straight, lesbian or whatever - black or white. All are equal in the sight of God and in equality of their commonly held sinnership. The Equality Bill wrongly gives the impression that it somehow acts as a corrective to reverse some perceived inequality, but of course this is emphatically not the case since the proposed law discriminates against Christians who may unwittingly be the cause of "offence". That offence would simply be held against them for refusing to submit to an enforced ideology (homosexuality) that is repugnant to both Scripture and their beliefs based upon it. Thus reverse discrimination would take place and inequality results, which illustrates the absurdity of a law which overturns that which it purports to secure!.

Second. What DC and others fail to understand is that the Bill, and his interference represent an attack upon a massively important principle, namely that of the freedom of association of Christians when gathered (irrespective of church denomination). That freedom includes the right for the church and its officers to choose with whom they do NOT wish to associate, for to do so would be incompatible with the clear teaching of the nature, purity, and practice of the church as the Bible so clearly teaches.Complete freedom of association is assumed, for example in the discrimination which we exercise every day - namely to associate with whom we like and to decline association with others. Thus, Conservatives are not "members" in association with those of the Labour, or Lib Dem parties by mutual choice and decision.

Third, and equally serious - DC assumes the Statist position that the British State has a right of jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the church, and on that basis the law should be used to compel some perceived equality for the admission of homosexuals. He, and the current government are sorely mistaken.The church belongs to Christ alone, and He is its sole Head to wholly govern and rule (through His Word and people. The writ of the State does NOT run in the Christian church.This principle is writ large on almost every page of the New Testament which is the great charter of the church's freedom and independence from the secular arm.Thus Magna Carta, in recognition, repeats the principle which has been contested ever since:"The Church in England shall be free".Mr Cameron must be told in no uncertain terms - to adapt the phrase:The State "has no jurisdiction in this realm"

It is kciking off in America now as well as they are having their own version of equality bill spat.

"Now a coalition of civil liberties groups, the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD), is calling on Obama to change these policies. Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, a CARD member, said, "In order to live up to the president’s own principles, the Faith-Based Initiatives program must guarantee that no organization that receives federal funding can discriminate against those of differing beliefs, and that those funds are used for strictly secular purposes—never for proselytizing."

There are times when I see our politicians arriving at "its all settled" destination .

I have been having some thoughts about nudge theory recently and where that may take us , I keep ending up in Huxleys "brave new world " wether I should ad "order" to the end of the title I dont know.

I also want to know what happens when my wifi connection goes down and my invisible friend isnt nudgeing me , what next an app for child raising !.

But we musnt forget that at least he mentions jesus , dear old gordon is still working with his moral compass , although it does seem to be spinning alot over a debt anaomly and giving no meaningfull readings in fact I think we are lost and all at sea.

Still if the pope can send harriet off for a re think and Eric Pickles come to belive in monarchy all is not lost .

I shall be giving some thought to nudge theory , I cant help but wonder if it is nothing more than a clever description of a weak enviromental argument , that realises that you cannot see beyond on how many minds now work in the technological era . No wonder the secualrists are feeling , whatever it is they feel !

Your Grace, an excellent comment on a complex issue but I can't agree that if our Lord Jesus Christ were around today he would not be preaching equality. Consider the parable of of a rich man finding it easier to pass through the Eye of a Needle than to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. A bit of the leveller in that statement. And while it was Thomas Jefferson who declared that 'all men are equal in the eyes of God' through the US Declaration of Independence, it has always seemed to be a profoundly Christian statement that our Lord would have heartily endorsed. It would be presumptous to proclaim Christ's blessing on the text of the US Constitution, but if alive today there is much in the original draft that he may have agreed with. Which takes us back to Obama's recent prayerful comment which your communicant Old South unkindly disparaged. Was Tom Lehrer right?

Your communicant also wonders if Jesus Christ would really have denied his ministry to gays, as the Catholic church does today. Cardinal Pelling in Sydney has denied the eucharist to homosexuals, which seems quite extraordinary to me. Gays are human after all, being born of woman with but a short time to live. Christ made a point of embracing people from all walks of life. His love was unconditional as is that of a parent to a child.

Your Grace, permit me to record some first hand observations about homosexuality. Firstly it does seem to be an inherited condition with a higher incidence in some families than in others. It follows that being gay is possibly a matter of nature, not nurture. Secondly I don't think any parent would wish or encourage their child to be gay. If you have any doubts about the prospect of eternal life through Christ, your children are the only shot at immortality you get. Gay children are potentially the road to genetic oblivion. Finally it does seem that a gay child can have great difficulty in coming out, to use the modern term. By this I mean there is mourning in the recognition of gayness both from the parent and the child in even the most liberal and loving family environment.

Adding this together I do believe that it is desparately important not to treat homosexuality as a crime or a disease. Having said that I don't believe that gay adoption is anything other than an idulgence for the 'parents' and should not be permitted and that marriage is a sacred contract between man and woman for the creation of a family. None of this is to deny that gays do not have parental instincts shared by all, but sometimes one has to accept that you can't argue both ways. What is also wrong is the aggressive proselytisation of the gay lifestyle by some sections of the homosexual community. It is counter-productive to their interests. Being gay needs to be accepted lovingly but not taught in schools and kindergartens.

No doubt these comments will bring the wrath of some on my head. If so the perpetrators should learn some Christian understanding.

Cameron is not as bad as Blair. He is far worse. I think a lot of people consider Blair to have been one of, if not THE worst Prime Minister ever. They regard him as a liar (WMD), a murderer (Dr David Kelly), a war criminal (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia), an opportunist (the funerals of both Diana and Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother), an embezzler (shredded expenses), an hypocrite (Socialist multi-millionaire with 6 houses and 10 jobs) a traitor (Lisbon Treaty non-referendum) and last but by no means least, a smarmy, cocksure tosser. Knowing ALL this, Cameron decides to emulate him in every department.

If you are a Christian, and you vote Tory, Labour or Liberal, amongst others, you are committing a sin.

The Mail report on this said Mr Cameron came out against further equalities legislation, saying: 'I think it's much more about culture than about law now.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248484/Cameron-Gay-refugees-Africa-given-asylum-UK.html#ixzz0ehfyUgDB Does this mean he’d repeal the Equality Bill if it becomes law?

And this reports he says the ideal adoption is finding a mum and dad, but then supports gay adoption. http://www.christian.org.uk/news/cameron-calls-on-c-of-e-grant-full-equality-to-gays/

Although Mr Cameron may be less likely to use law (although he supported Labour’s law against the RC adoption agencies), but he’s still to trying to persuade the CofE to adopt an un-Christian position – and it is un-Christian because a core belief behind the gay equality agenda is that homosexuality in inherent as is race - and he wants the teaching of homosexuality as normal embedded in schools, showing he’s just as keen as Labour to try to force lib-left beliefs on society, my future in the Conservative Party is now in doubt. I will continue my current commitments to the election, but after then, I’m not so sure. Maybe somehow Cameron could be replaced by genuine conservative

Wouldn't it be nice if there were the option to vote for a conservative party at the next election?

Unfortunately, no such option seems to exist. (I shall pre-empt the inevitable ripostes by saying that UKIP's particular European agenda does not make it any more essentially conservative than the New Tories, while the BNP is simply political leftism with a nationalist flavour.)

Throughout my adult life, the Tories have been (yes, even under the Iron Lady) politically liberal rather than conservative. And now Cameron comes out with this - promoting an agenda deeply subversive of conservative political principles and instincts regarding both the relationship between the Established Church and the State and the notion of a moral order informing and regulating the social order.

In the present circumstances, for whom is a traditional, Burkean conservative to vote?

English Viking, I am thinking twice,even three, four, five...times. I will decide after the election. I have been pondering this since Mr Cameron's pronouncements in the summer, but have been doing so since the summer, and this latest attempt by Mr Cameron might be the final straw

'If our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality'.

Hmm - has Cameron read his Bible much recently? To quote Malachi (and Handel of course!)'But who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth? for He is like a refiner's fire.' Not quite the same image, but one we should perhaps not forget, or dismiss.

I am apalled at Blue Dog's ignorance with regard to Cardinal Pell.The eucharist cannot be offered to anyone whom the priest knows to be in a state of mortal sin.It is just contemptuous and insulting that they present themselves for communion anyway.I am an ex Catholic.I have enough respect not to behave in this manner.I don't agree with many of the Church's teachings.I am not so stupid that I demand that the Church change thousands of years of tradition to suit my requirements.I have no respect for people who do so.Have the gumption to leave.

George (surely not Pell!) @ 0235, thank you for your remarks. As I understand it a Catholic may not accept the Eucharist without having made confession. But if they have confessed, what objection remains? You obviously know more about this topic than you admit because I did not mention that some of the gays were in same sex partnerships, as you have correctly inferred. However I do recall something about a sinner who repents... And if, going further, a sinner is in need and seeks the help and wisdom of the Holy Catholic Church, is it Christian to turn them away? I concede there is something in your implied point that the sinners may only have been seeking self-promotion and an opportunity to embarrass His Eminence, but that may have been a risk worth taking in the first instance. Turn the other cheek etc.

Perhaps as an ex-Catholic you would enjoy the living tension within the Anglican Communion, about which His Grace so eloquently writes.

Your Grace, your communicant suspected that his earlier comments would upset somebody, but wasn't expecting that the first assault would come from a lapsed Catholic.

Such statements as these by Mr Cameron will cost him as many votes as he thinks he might gain. But then, they are all more concerned about impressing their EUSSR masters than their countrymen. After a lifetime of voting Conservative, I'm off to UKIP.

Everyone has the right to live their life the way that they want to, so long as they are not hurting anyone else. I completely respect people's beliefs, but wish that people gave that respect back.

A gay lifestyle may not fit in with your individual beliefs, but whatever happened to 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' or treating others as you would wish to be treated? The biggest problem I have with the Church (and other demoninations) is that they immediately attack any legislation that gives more rights to gay people.

In the middle ages, the Church was happy to bless same-sex unions, but this all changed as new translations of the bible were commissioned, and influenced by the views held at the time. The Church has lost its way. This is shown by the dwindling congregations, and the fact that its congregation knows well enough that the threat of removing their funding (10% tithe) will have an impact on the Church. It would seem that the Church is now more about raising funds that promoting the Bible's key messages of love and respect for others.

Instead, people are focussing on the small number of passages in the bible that seem to suggest that homosexuality is wrong. I say seem to suggest, because people also take what they want from those passages. For example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about a crime against hospitality, misteating the strangers within the gates. A story that some Christians should take note of. The same can be said for Leviticus. If the laws in Leviticus are to be followed entirely, then why aren't people calling for a ban on shellfish?

I am suprised by David Cameron's interview. The Conservative Party has long tried to stop the progression of gay rights in the same way that the Church has. I wouldn't likely vote Conservative because of this. The interesting thing to me is that, it would seem, David Cameron and the Conservative party now see more strength in the gay vote, than the religious vote.

Why can't we just allow each other to live and let live. Surely that's a teaching in the Bible that is a win for everyone?

Clearly the most problematic passage for all who wish to say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

The conclusion is this: every time homosexual behavior is mentioned, it is condemned. The Bible is not homophobic (i.e., obsessively hostile toward homosexuality), but it clearly treats heterosexuality as normative (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3.

I write this comment without having read the post or comments as Just the headline is enough to make my blood boil. David Cameron clearly has no scruples or principles and will stoop to any depth to get votes. It seems he is after the Queer, oops sorry, Gay vote. What concerns me even more was his offer to accept persecuted Gays from Africa. Where does all this crap stop?

Adultery - John Terry is stripped of the captaincy - being captain, you are a role model. Your behaviour led to your fall. The majority of society accept this position.

Homosexuality - contrary to God's plan for our lives. It is immoral. It is a sin to live such a lifestyle.

However; I will not judge the sinner (God will do that), I will not discriminate (God has accepted me) in my friendships, in my work life, I will welcome any sinner into my Church. I will do this; preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and say as Christ did "Go and sin no more."

CallMeDave is trying, it seems, to be all things to all men. In reaching out to the gay community you will lose far more votes from us long standing Conservatives (with a capital "C") supporters. Me thinks your strategy is beginning to backfire on you.

Restore the Conservative party to its core roots and stop trying to be the LibLabCon party. Lead a party (and government) with morals. Be different! "Do not conform the the standard of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.....then you will know God's will" Romans 12 v 2

I want a Conservative party to vote for in May. Please give me one before I place my X elsewhere.

Is he really sken-eyed? Now that's interesting. The image gets curiouser and curiouser.

Anyway, I wish he'd grow up and grow a conscience. Yes, I say a conscience, because he's either just playing politics pragmatically (i.e. expediently), or....-->

The more exposure this soft-faced traitor countenances, the more worried I get.

P.S: I once heard someone talking about the que-- er, homos in Stuart times (James 1/6 was, as I'm sure you all know; orgies at court and all). Anyway, the point in that talk was that the vice is principally about POWER: an ASSERTION OF DOMINANCE in which one individual shames another by enforcing submission.

Perhaps there's something in that? Especially as the issue's now so political? And given the filth of present day politics?

The Romans passage is part of a letter in which Paul condones slavery several times, refuses women their request for an equal part in Christian worship (declaring they have a lower moral status than men), states that women should never wear jewellery or plait their hair, permits lay members of the church to have more than one wife or concubine, and suggests that a learning disability is a moral fault.

I assume, therefore, that people using this passage to attack homosexuality are also of the belief that slavery is OK, women are lower beings than men, and that that polygamy is fine and that people with a learning disability will also burn in hell?

I also find it interesting that some people posting comments are offended by being called bigots, but that it seems perfectly OK to call gay people queers, homo's and the like, especially if you type "ooops sorry" into the post.

‘Yet Mr Cameron appears to be intent on pursuing the Harman agenda and forging an absolutism.’

It seems to me that he is preparing for the future. The supremacy of European Union law is now well settled and the European Union will insist that the next government fully implements its Directive on gay equality as applying to churches.

In other words, the defeat of the wider application of gay equality is merely temporary.

This is why Cameron came out with the astonishing revelation that he could persuade a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Scotland on the matter.

The constitutional powers of the European Union now frame the context of politics in Great Britain and Northern Ireland: left-of-Centre. These powers also define the limits of political discourse and what is and what is not excluded from the zone of free speech in this country.

In the public sphere, it is game over first for the Judaeo-Christian and then the others.

The Conservative Christian and the Christian conservative must now decide for which political party to vote for.

The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

Allowing Your Grace latitude to revile David Cameron, which he may or may not deserve, I would remark that Your Grace's attitude to gay people seems not to have moved beyond Your Grace's first manifestation 450 years ago. At about that time another wrote: "Hath not a gay man eyes? hath not a gay man hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a straight man is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?"

Well, slightly edited, but I'm sure Your Grace will take the point. As I hope will some of Your Grace's communicants whose epistles exude disgust and hate. At what? can one ask. At a fellow human being, created in the image of God?

And for Your Grace's communicants who wish to quote from texts between 2,000-2,500 years ago, are you saying that on the basis of these few solitary texts your fellow human beings should be put to death? Condemned to eternal fire in the wrath of God? I suggest that there are more compelling creeds in which to believe: for example, "Love your neigbour as yourself."

If Mr Cameron's words stimulate such visceral responses than I would respectfully suggest that Your Grace's communicants look within themselves to explore the source of the vehemence of their words. As for me, the shameful hypocrisy and discriminatory behaviour of Your Grace's successors in voting in favour of continuing their discrimination against other Christian people is a further stain on the already fragile integrity of the Established Church, of which I am a frequently ashamed member and cleric. If Mr Cameron will humble the prelates, he has my vote.

The sentiments you espouse are the very heart of what is wrong with the church.Unless church people have the guts to stand up for the undiluted message of the gospel the church might as well shut up shop.The message of the Gospel surely is 'Love the sinner, hate the sin.'

Your gospel seems to be love the sinner ignore the sin or even worse pretend it doesn`t matter!

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out ..." (Acts 3:19).

The greatest need for any sinner is have his sins blotted out, but a man will never have the pardon of sin while he is in love with his sin. There must be a hatred of sin, a loathing of it, a turning from it. Repentance is a revolution in dealing with our attitude and view towards sin and righteousness. Repentance is not something one does with his hands, but it is an inward attitude of the soul. Sin must become, in the eyes of the sinner, exceedingly sinful.

@Anonymous"If you do not believe the texts, why don't you leave our church and leave us in peace?"

Firstly, because for all its faults it's my church as well, not just yours. And actually it's not yours or mine, but God's. Secondly, because our Lord said that he did not come to bring peace but a sword. We are not to be comfortable but disturbed by God.

@Ien said...

This is a parody, right?

"The message of the Gospel surely is 'Love the sinner, hate the sin.'"

Howard Parry,To use your logic.Because Jesus didn`t speak about paedophiles that would make it ok then?

Love the sinner.Hate the sin.(I will break this down for you) 1,But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

2,We can see how much God hates sin by looking at what he has done to redeem us from it. He sent his Son to earth to die on a cross to condemn sin and to make us righteous (Rom. 8:3-4). He sent his Son to save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). He made his Son, who knew no sin, to be sin that we might be made righteous (2 Cor. 5:21). He sent his son to bear our sins in his body that we might be dead to sin (1 Peter 2:24).

These passages not only teach now much God hates sin but also how much he loves us. God hates sin so much that he commands that we turn from it. He loves us so much that he sent his Son to die for us (John 3:16).

The destruction of Christianity is one of the aims stated in the Communist manifesto, the same is going on in the US.Promotion of women priests, gays etc is simply to cause division, it is a divide and conqEUr strategy.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)